| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 12:48:01 PM |
| Object: |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God =3D Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning. And he
knew, at the beginning, that if people did not accept that he would do
something so utterly ridiculous, he would have to cast them into hell
where they would weep and gnash their teeth in a lake of fire forever.
All this to please his own fragile ego, apparently.
This is the most ridiculous concept I have ever been asked to accept,
and I don't accept it. I cannot accept that an all knowing, all
perfect, all good God would be such a sadistic idiot. Apparently
Christians can.
God sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy his anger and human beings
for being exactly the way he created them to be and for being exactly
the way he knew they would be from the beginnning of time. And yet God
now threatens to torture people for eternity if they don't believe that
he is stupid enough to do something like this.
It constantly amazes me that Christians can pretend that this makes
some kind of sense.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath ! (Author unknown)
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
28 Mar 2005 09:33:56 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112014081.382410.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning. And he
knew, at the beginning, that if people did not accept that he would do
something so utterly ridiculous, he would have to cast them into hell
where they would weep and gnash their teeth in a lake of fire forever.
All this to please his own fragile ego, apparently.
This is the most ridiculous concept I have ever been asked to accept,
and I don't accept it. I cannot accept that an all knowing, all
perfect, all good God would be such a sadistic idiot. Apparently
Christians can.
God sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy his anger and human beings
for being exactly the way he created them to be and for being exactly
the way he knew they would be from the beginnning of time. And yet God
now threatens to torture people for eternity if they don't believe that
he is stupid enough to do something like this.
It constantly amazes me that Christians can pretend that this makes
some kind of sense.
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of scriptural
truth.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone. This is no different
then a child that *must* touch a hot item at least once, though it brings a
change forever to its innocence in that it brings both pain & guilt when it
understand *why* the parents said no, but it is actually a good change as it
know the difference between hot & cold. The good parent then comforts the
child to relieve the childs pain as *only the parent can*. So, the fall was
bad in that it resulted in mankinds loss of innocence and becoming guilty
for disobeying God and resulting in the pain of sin, but it was good in that
now we can appreciate what sin is, imperfection. This imperfection is
heredity and passes to all mankind from Adam.
2. Since God knew this would happen he also knew how he would comfort us as
*only he could*. To remove our sin or imperfection would require that God
alone would take on our sin by becoming like us. Since God created us
perfectly our aquired imperfection meant that we could no longer on our own
merit stand blameless before the judge of the world. God therefore took on
the sentence of guilt upon himself so as to pay our penalty which was
seperation forever by death from the presence of God.
3. Since Christ died in the flesh as a perfect man he was able to remove the
stain of sin for all mankind, which he did. Now we come back full circle,
since it required a freewill act to fall, it requires a freewill act to
return. The fall was disodediance by unbelief of Gods command resulting in
the inheritance of sin, the second requires an act of obediance by belief in
Gods command to accept Gods method of sacrifice to remove our sin.
This is just an attempt to explain, I doubt you will consider it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
06 Apr 2005 12:15:24 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com>...
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of scriptural
truth.
What amazes me is how you can be so blind even when somebody clearly
explains to you the obvious flaws in your beliefs.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone.
You're just talking crap Randy. At the start of the bible...there were
no people. There was no earth at the start of the bible. Christians
are taught that god is all-knowing...and is a perfect planner...and a
perfect designer.
So before 'god' even made anything....god firstly did not give the
product (humans) a choice to be created or not....so there's no
obligation for anybody to follow that clown (god) in the first place.
Also...before 'god' made anything....god knew every single future
mechanical action/movement for god's future product (humans etc). But
remember...that the product (humans etc) was not yet made. So why
don't you ask yourself how 'god' knew every single future mechanical
action for the product before the product was made? You might suddenly
realise that one of your teachings is that god is a perfect planner
and perfect designer....and so you might automatically realise that
'god' was the one that chose all of those future mechanical
actions/movements.
And here's a good one for you Randy.... you reckon your god knows
everything...right?
Well....god obviously doesn't know everything...because he/she/it
needed to go to 'find' Adam.
-----
Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
Where art thou?"
"And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
-----
Where art thou? God is "all-knowing" and all-powerful....and god needs
to say 'where are you?'. And god needed to ask Adam
questions...because god didn't know something? Admit it Randy....the
whole story is a big joke on you hehehe.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Keshav?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
12 Apr 2005 01:38:28 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com>
| You're just talking crap Randy. At the start of the bible...there were
| no people. There was no earth at the start of the bible. Christians
| are taught that god is all-knowing...and is a perfect planner...and a
| perfect designer.
|
| So before 'god' even made anything....god firstly did not give the
| product (humans) a choice to be created or not....so there's no
| obligation for anybody to follow that clown (god) in the first place.
| Also...before 'god' made anything....god knew every single future
| mechanical action/movement for god's future product (humans etc). But
| remember...that the product (humans etc) was not yet made. So why
| don't you ask yourself how 'god' knew every single future mechanical
| action for the product before the product was made? You might suddenly
| realise that one of your teachings is that god is a perfect planner
| and perfect designer....and so you might automatically realise that
| 'god' was the one that chose all of those future mechanical
| actions/movements.
[....]
That would be the case in a heavenly world, where everything runs in accordance
with God. But our present world is not so, it's a world of duality, with good
and bad, because it's a transitional world to test our faith and enable our
spiritual development.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
12 Apr 2005 03:09:25 PM |
|
|
André Keshav <andre_dumarc@hotmayle.com> wrote in
news:425bcfa9$1_1@news.bluewin.ch:
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com>
| You're just talking crap Randy. At the start of the bible...there
| were no people. There was no earth at the start of the bible.
| Christians are taught that god is all-knowing...and is a perfect
| planner...and a perfect designer.
|
| So before 'god' even made anything....god firstly did not give the
| product (humans) a choice to be created or not....so there's no
| obligation for anybody to follow that clown (god) in the first place.
| Also...before 'god' made anything....god knew every single future
| mechanical action/movement for god's future product (humans etc). But
| remember...that the product (humans etc) was not yet made. So why
| don't you ask yourself how 'god' knew every single future mechanical
| action for the product before the product was made? You might
| suddenly realise that one of your teachings is that god is a perfect
| planner and perfect designer....and so you might automatically
| realise that 'god' was the one that chose all of those future
| mechanical actions/movements.
[....]
because it's a transitional world to test
our faith and enable our spiritual development.
The second is no doubt true, the first is crappola.
--
DWA should be a felony.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
28 Mar 2005 10:04:22 PM |
|
|
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112014081.382410.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning. And he
knew, at the beginning, that if people did not accept that he would do
something so utterly ridiculous, he would have to cast them into hell
where they would weep and gnash their teeth in a lake of fire forever.
All this to please his own fragile ego, apparently.
This is the most ridiculous concept I have ever been asked to accept,
and I don't accept it. I cannot accept that an all knowing, all
perfect, all good God would be such a sadistic idiot. Apparently
Christians can.
God sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy his anger and human beings
for being exactly the way he created them to be and for being exactly
the way he knew they would be from the beginnning of time. And yet God
now threatens to torture people for eternity if they don't believe that
he is stupid enough to do something like this.
It constantly amazes me that Christians can pretend that this makes
some kind of sense.
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of scriptural
truth.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone. This is no different
then a child that *must* touch a hot item at least once, though it brings a
change forever to its innocence in that it brings both pain & guilt when it
understand *why* the parents said no, but it is actually a good change as it
know the difference between hot & cold.
Well, it is a different situation. The parents could neither design their
child's nature, nor engineer a world in which the child would never encounter
hot objects.
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human nature and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but cruel.
The good parent then comforts the
child to relieve the childs pain as *only the parent can*. So, the fall was
bad in that it resulted in mankinds loss of innocence and becoming guilty
for disobeying God and resulting in the pain of sin, but it was good in that
now we can appreciate what sin is, imperfection.
In a world with no imperfections, this knowledge would be unnecessary.
God decided against such a world, even though He could forsee all the
consequences of this -- including having a good fraction of His
children spending eternity in unceasing torment.
This imperfection is
heredity and passes to all mankind from Adam.
God could also have chosen to make this a non-hereditary feature...
2. Since God knew this would happen he also knew how he would comfort us as
*only he could*. To remove our sin or imperfection would require that God
alone would take on our sin by becoming like us.
Not really -- God set up all the rules, there was no higher power demanding
that He make the cosmic books balance. After all, He chose to change
the rules arbitrarily between the old convenant and the new covenant; He
can set up the rules in any way He chooses. He could merely have said
"Allee Allee All In Free", and it would have been so. No need for him
to imitate the God-sacrificing rituals found in many agricultural
societies which preceded Christianity.
Since God created us
perfectly our aquired imperfection meant that we could no longer on our own
merit stand blameless before the judge of the world. God therefore took on
the sentence of guilt upon himself so as to pay our penalty which was
seperation forever by death from the presence of God.
3. Since Christ died in the flesh as a perfect man he was able to remove the
stain of sin for all mankind, which he did. Now we come back full circle,
since it required a freewill act to fall, it requires a freewill act to
return.
Gee, I'd think that since the decision to fall, taken by my ancestors,
somehow taints me, then similarly any decision to accept grace on
the part of any of my forbears ought to automatically transfer to me
as well.
The fall was disodediance by unbelief of Gods command resulting in
the inheritance of sin, the second requires an act of obediance by belief in
Gods command to accept Gods method of sacrifice to remove our sin.
Will this act of obedience remove all our tendency to sin? If not,
what's going to be the deal in heaven? Will God revoke our free will
there, or will we continue to sin, just as even saved Christians
do daily on earth?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 03:01:09 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112014081.382410.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
(snip)
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of
scriptural
truth.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would
choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone. This is no
different
then a child that *must* touch a hot item at least once, though it
brings a
change forever to its innocence in that it brings both pain & guilt
when it
understand *why* the parents said no, but it is actually a good
change as it
know the difference between hot & cold.
Well, it is a different situation. The parents could neither design
their
child's nature, nor engineer a world in which the child would never
encounter
hot objects.
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the post so
people can read it.
keith
The good parent then comforts the
child to relieve the childs pain as *only the parent can*. So, the
fall was
bad in that it resulted in mankinds loss of innocence and becoming
guilty
for disobeying God and resulting in the pain of sin, but it was
good in that
now we can appreciate what sin is, imperfection.
In a world with no imperfections, this knowledge would be
unnecessary.
God decided against such a world, even though He could forsee all the
consequences of this -- including having a good fraction of His
children spending eternity in unceasing torment.
This imperfection is
heredity and passes to all mankind from Adam.
God could also have chosen to make this a non-hereditary feature...
2. Since God knew this would happen he also knew how he would
comfort us as
*only he could*. To remove our sin or imperfection would require
that God
alone would take on our sin by becoming like us.
Not really -- God set up all the rules, there was no higher power
demanding
that He make the cosmic books balance. After all, He chose to change
the rules arbitrarily between the old convenant and the new covenant;
He
can set up the rules in any way He chooses. He could merely have
said
"Allee Allee All In Free", and it would have been so. No need for
him
to imitate the God-sacrificing rituals found in many agricultural
societies which preceded Christianity.
Since God created us
perfectly our aquired imperfection meant that we could no longer on
our own
merit stand blameless before the judge of the world. God therefore
took on
the sentence of guilt upon himself so as to pay our penalty which
was
seperation forever by death from the presence of God.
3. Since Christ died in the flesh as a perfect man he was able to
remove the
stain of sin for all mankind, which he did. Now we come back full
circle,
since it required a freewill act to fall, it requires a freewill
act to
return.
Gee, I'd think that since the decision to fall, taken by my
ancestors,
somehow taints me, then similarly any decision to accept grace on
the part of any of my forbears ought to automatically transfer to me
as well.
The fall was disodediance by unbelief of Gods command resulting in
the inheritance of sin, the second requires an act of obediance by
belief in
Gods command to accept Gods method of sacrifice to remove our sin.
Will this act of obedience remove all our tendency to sin? If not,
what's going to be the deal in heaven? Will God revoke our free will
there, or will we continue to sin, just as even saved Christians
do daily on earth?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 11:58:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112014081.382410.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
(snip)
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of
scriptural
truth.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would
choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone. This is no
different
then a child that *must* touch a hot item at least once, though it
brings a
change forever to its innocence in that it brings both pain & guilt
when it
understand *why* the parents said no, but it is actually a good
change as it
know the difference between hot & cold.
Well, it is a different situation. The parents could neither design
their
child's nature, nor engineer a world in which the child would never
encounter
hot objects.
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the post so
people can read it.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
30 Mar 2005 01:40:29 AM |
|
|
Hi William
wcb wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
Accepting those claims for the purpose of this argument. I also believe
those claims.
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
accepted.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
agreed.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
Quibble. We Christians would not say that good people are the ones that
are saved and bad people are the ones who aren't. None of us has any
warrant for thinking we are better than other people. Salvation comes
by God's grace. But I do accept that God knew what we would do prior to
creating us.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
I would say that it's not part of omnipotence that an omnipotent being
be able to bring about contradictory states of affairs. If an
omnipotent being brings about a particular free creature, then how
things turn out are the result of the free person's decision, a
decision that can be different from what the omnipotent being would
prefer the free creature make. In other words, if God creates Smith as
a free creature then which world is actual (a world where Smith only
does good or one where he sometimes does evil) is up to Smith. If the
omnipotent being were to decide which world were actual then Smith's
action wouldn't be free--which contradicts the premise that Smith was
free.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
I would say that if Smith is free then his being the good Smith or the
bad Smith isn't something that the omnipotent being decides. If the
omnipotent being could program Smith to do only good then Smith would
not be free.
I think the rest of your argument is moot if my above statement is
correct, so there is nothing for me to respond to below.
keith
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
30 Mar 2005 01:40:43 AM |
|
|
Hi William
wcb wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
Accepting those claims for the purpose of this argument. I also believe
those claims.
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
accepted.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
agreed.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
Quibble. We Christians would not say that good people are the ones that
are saved and bad people are the ones who aren't. None of us has any
warrant for thinking we are better than other people. Salvation comes
by God's grace. But I do accept that God knew what we would do prior to
creating us.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
I would say that it's not part of omnipotence that an omnipotent being
be able to bring about contradictory states of affairs. If an
omnipotent being brings about a particular free creature, then how
things turn out are the result of the free person's decision, a
decision that can be different from what the omnipotent being would
prefer the free creature make. In other words, if God creates Smith as
a free creature then which world is actual (a world where Smith only
does good or one where he sometimes does evil) is up to Smith. If the
omnipotent being were to decide which world were actual then Smith's
action wouldn't be free--which contradicts the premise that Smith was
free.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
I would say that if Smith is free then his being the good Smith or the
bad Smith isn't something that the omnipotent being decides. If the
omnipotent being could program Smith to do only good then Smith would
not be free.
I think the rest of your argument is moot if my above statement is
correct, so there is nothing for me to respond to below.
keith
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
30 Mar 2005 01:41:11 AM |
|
|
Hi William
wcb wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
Accepting those claims for the purpose of this argument. I also believe
those claims.
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
accepted.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
agreed.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
Quibble. We Christians would not say that good people are the ones that
are saved and bad people are the ones who aren't. None of us has any
warrant for thinking we are better than other people. Salvation comes
by God's grace. But I do accept that God knew what we would do prior to
creating us.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
I would say that it's not part of omnipotence that an omnipotent being
be able to bring about contradictory states of affairs. If an
omnipotent being brings about a particular free creature, then how
things turn out are the result of the free person's decision, a
decision that can be different from what the omnipotent being would
prefer the free creature make. In other words, if God creates Smith as
a free creature then which world is actual (a world where Smith only
does good or one where he sometimes does evil) is up to Smith. If the
omnipotent being were to decide which world were actual then Smith's
action wouldn't be free--which contradicts the premise that Smith was
free.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
I would say that if Smith is free then his being the good Smith or the
bad Smith isn't something that the omnipotent being decides. If the
omnipotent being could program Smith to do only good then Smith would
not be free.
I think the rest of your argument is moot if my above statement is
correct, so there is nothing for me to respond to below.
keith
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 03:55:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112014081.382410.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
(snip)
What amazes me is atheistic conclusion drawn from ignorance of
scriptural
truth.
1. God knew from the start that creatures withh free will would
choose
knowledge of good & evil instead of just good alone. This is no
different
then a child that *must* touch a hot item at least once, though it
brings a
change forever to its innocence in that it brings both pain & guilt
when it
understand *why* the parents said no, but it is actually a good
change as it
know the difference between hot & cold.
Well, it is a different situation. The parents could neither design
their
child's nature, nor engineer a world in which the child would never
encounter
hot objects.
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 04:42:17 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
keithj43@yahoo.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
(snip)
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human
nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God
had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but
cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could
have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create
a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume
that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that
God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest
of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the
post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
I'd not agree that the fact that all people (except jesus, I'd say)
have sinned implies that our free will isn't really free. IMO it is the
very fact that we freely sin that makes it sin. That we are sure to
often sin isn't because we *cannot* do otherwise, it's that we choose
not to IMO.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
I wouldn't agree that this follows. It seems possible to me that
everyone who ends up in heaven will have reached a point where we will
freely choose to only do what's right. on the other hand, maybe the
only real good that comes from our freedom is freely embracing God and
that once we do that we don't need freedom anymore. That also seems
possible to me and if it is teh case then there is no problem in
supposing that an all loving God would allow us freedom here on earth
but not allow it in heaven.
Keith
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 05:24:59 AM |
|
|
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112071337.224425.31620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
keithj43@yahoo.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
(snip)
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human
nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God
had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but
cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could
have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create
a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume
that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that
God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest
of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the
post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
I'd not agree that the fact that all people (except jesus, I'd say)
have sinned implies that our free will isn't really free. IMO it is the
very fact that we freely sin that makes it sin. That we are sure to
often sin isn't because we *cannot* do otherwise, it's that we choose
not to IMO.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
I wouldn't agree that this follows. It seems possible to me that
everyone who ends up in heaven will have reached a point where we will
freely choose to only do what's right. on the other hand, maybe the
only real good that comes from our freedom is freely embracing God and
that once we do that we don't need freedom anymore. That also seems
possible to me and if it is teh case then there is no problem in
supposing that an all loving God would allow us freedom here on earth
but not allow it in heaven.
Keith
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness. It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good. The fact is that the desire to sin
is actually a type of bondage. Since evil & sin are simply the lacks of good
& rightousness we will forever only do that which is the greatest good
possible. That is ultimate freedom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 04:45:26 PM |
|
|
In article <114hpqksq3545ca@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112071337.224425.31620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
keithj43@yahoo.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
(snip)
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human
nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God
had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but
cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could
have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create
a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume
that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that
God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest
of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the
post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
I'd not agree that the fact that all people (except jesus, I'd say)
have sinned implies that our free will isn't really free. IMO it is the
very fact that we freely sin that makes it sin. That we are sure to
often sin isn't because we *cannot* do otherwise, it's that we choose
not to IMO.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
I wouldn't agree that this follows. It seems possible to me that
everyone who ends up in heaven will have reached a point where we will
freely choose to only do what's right. on the other hand, maybe the
only real good that comes from our freedom is freely embracing God and
that once we do that we don't need freedom anymore. That also seems
possible to me and if it is teh case then there is no problem in
supposing that an all loving God would allow us freedom here on earth
but not allow it in heaven.
Keith
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness. It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good.
Well, if He might do that someday, then He could as well do that today.
Or serveral thousand years ago, and thus save an enormous amount of suffering,
pain, and death.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 06:37:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:24:59 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112071337.224425.31620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
keithj43@yahoo.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
(snip)
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human
nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God
had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but
cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could
have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create
a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume
that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that
God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest
of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the
post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
I'd not agree that the fact that all people (except jesus, I'd say)
have sinned implies that our free will isn't really free. IMO it is the
very fact that we freely sin that makes it sin. That we are sure to
often sin isn't because we *cannot* do otherwise, it's that we choose
not to IMO.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
I wouldn't agree that this follows. It seems possible to me that
everyone who ends up in heaven will have reached a point where we will
freely choose to only do what's right. on the other hand, maybe the
only real good that comes from our freedom is freely embracing God and
that once we do that we don't need freedom anymore. That also seems
possible to me and if it is teh case then there is no problem in
supposing that an all loving God would allow us freedom here on earth
but not allow it in heaven.
Keith
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness. It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good. The fact is that the desire to sin
is actually a type of bondage. Since evil & sin are simply the lacks of good
& rightousness we will forever only do that which is the greatest good
possible. That is ultimate freedom.
Too bad your all-wise god was not smart enough to grant the beatific
vision right away. You have just confirmed that god is evil - or
would that be stupid?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 08:54:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:24:59 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness.
A more common description would be 'hallucination'.
It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good.
Granted, but _which_ god??????
The fact is that the desire to sin is actually a type of bondage.
Errh, is eating pork still a sin? In that case, I desire to sin in
McDonalds!
Since evil & sin are simply the lacks of good
& rightousness we will forever only do that which is the greatest good
possible. That is ultimate freedom.
That's nice, sweetie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 09:01:40 AM |
|
|
Jos Flachs wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:24:59 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness.
A more common description would be 'hallucination'.
Or, even more commonly, "dreaming". I know when I sleep, I have
beautiful visions of Thora Birch, Natalie Portman and Charlize Theron.
Does that mean Thora, Natalie, and Charlize are goddesses? Well, yes,
but that's besides the point! ;-)
It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good.
Granted, but _which_ god??????
He capitalized the G, so evidently he's referring to the Christian god
Jehovah.
The fact is that the desire to sin is actually a type of bondage.
Errh, is eating pork still a sin? In that case, I desire to sin in
McDonalds!
And I'm going to wear a shirt with two fabrics and grow my sideburns
long! I'm living in sin, baby! *rolls eyes*
Since evil & sin are simply the lacks of good
& rightousness we will forever only do that which is the greatest good
possible. That is ultimate freedom.
That's nice, sweetie.
Indeed. I'm not sure what he was getting at here. Everyone is capable
of evil. Some are just more capable than others. (Is lying to the
American public about why we went to war, causing over 1,500 American
deaths as well as over 150,000 Iraqi deaths evil? Or is evil just
subjective? Let me know, mkay?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 12:19:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:01:40 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Indeed. I'm not sure what he was getting at here. Everyone is capable
of evil. Some are just more capable than others. (Is lying to the
American public about why we went to war, causing over 1,500 American
deaths as well as over 150,000 Iraqi deaths evil? Or is evil just
subjective? Let me know, mkay?)
Difficult to say. Should your name be Fred Stone, invading another
country to rob it from its natural resources is perfectly acceptable.
But if Thailand would shut down imports from the US, because the US
illegally copies the most important export product of Thailand
(jasmine rice), now would be REALLY evil!
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivej Mahasathan Amornpiman Avatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 02:28:02 PM |
|
|
Jos Flachs <"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> wrote in
news:5phi415fickkcdtak51o802fvr7281hgj9@4ax.com:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:01:40 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Indeed. I'm not sure what he was getting at here. Everyone is
capable of evil. Some are just more capable than others. (Is lying to
the American public about why we went to war, causing over 1,500
American deaths as well as over 150,000 Iraqi deaths evil? Or is evil
just subjective? Let me know, mkay?)
Difficult to say. Should your name be Fred Stone, invading another
country to rob it from its natural resources is perfectly acceptable.
Since when do gulliberals have any moral basis for calling anything
"evil?"
But if Thailand would shut down imports from the US, because the US
illegally copies the most important export product of Thailand
(jasmine rice), now would be REALLY evil!
Shucks, the last time I cooked with jasmine rice it said "Imported from
Thailand" on the label.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
29 Mar 2005 06:32:12 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112071337.224425.31620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1112065269.661870.62290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
keithj43@yahoo.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <114gu7ds6780o65@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> writes:
(snip)
An omnipotent God, presumably, could have designed both human
nature
and
the nature of the world differently, had He so chosen. If God
had
designed a world without evil -- certainly not beyond His alleged
abilities --
then this object lesson would have been not only unneeded, but
cruel.
I wouldn't agree that it's a given that an omnipotent being could
have
created humanity with a different nature. It's a contradiction to
suggest that an omnipotent being create X without X having some
property that is essential to X, akin to suggesting that God create
a
square object with only three sides. I wouldn't presume to assume
that
our tendency to at some point choose evil with our freedom isn't
essential to us. If it is then it's a contradiction to suggest that
God
create us so that we never use our freedom that way. Since the rest
of
your argument depends on this point, I'll leave the rest of the
post so
people can read it.
So you think this might simply be beyond God's ability, an option
denied unto Him by the nature of reality.
I suppose I'd raise two points:
a) the empirical evidence seems to indicate that this free will
isn't really free as regards sinning, as according to any
Christian theology I know of, no single human being, out
of the ten billion this test has been run on, has chosen
successfully not to sin. It seems that free will absolutely
mandates sinning.
I'd not agree that the fact that all people (except jesus, I'd say)
have sinned implies that our free will isn't really free. IMO it is the
very fact that we freely sin that makes it sin. That we are sure to
often sin isn't because we *cannot* do otherwise, it's that we choose
not to IMO.
b) unless God revokes free will for those who make it to
heaven, sinning will continue in heaven as well. Which
should make for some truly interesting theology.
I wouldn't agree that this follows. It seems possible to me that
everyone who ends up in heaven will have reached a point where we will
freely choose to only do what's right. on the other hand, maybe the
only real good that comes from our freedom is freely embracing God and
that once we do that we don't need freedom anymore. That also seems
possible to me and if it is teh case then there is no problem in
supposing that an all loving God would allow us freedom here on earth
but not allow it in heaven.
Keith
Good ideas, maybe this might help. The so called beautific vision is when
we see God in all his glory and goodness. It could very well be possible
that this is true freedom because when we see the infinite good of God it
will hold us in only desiring to do good.
Hallucinations mean nothing.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, witho | | | | | | | |
